thorchain_get_inbound_addresses

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral nuances such as whether addresses are static or rotating, if there are rate limits, or how the chain filter affects the response. The only behavioral signal is the word 'Get', which implies a read operation, but this is inherent to the tool name.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence that conveys the tool's purpose without any fluff. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description provides sufficient information to understand what the tool does. However, without annotations, some behavioral details are missing, but the tool's low complexity mitigates this.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description does not elaborate on the chain parameter, but the schema provides a complete definition with an example ('BTC','ETH'). Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no additional parameter meaning, meeting the baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states what the tool does: it retrieves inbound vault addresses for depositing assets to THORChain. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('inbound vault addresses'), which distinguishes it from other THORChain tools like get_balance or get_pools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'for depositing assets to THORChain' provides a clear usage context, indicating this tool is used when a user needs to send funds to THORChain. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient to guide selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.